They've managed to produce a return.

And as usual it is not how it sounds. For very short time they produce excess heat spending a lot of electricity using a very complex device. This is very far for producing electricity and running device is self-sustainable mode and I'm not shure that for their device they will be able to solve the problem of converting heat they get back into electricity efficiently enough to run the device on its own.

It is even worse than this, really. If journalists did not lie, they get 2.5 MJ of heat from 2.1 MJ of laser beam. How many MJ of electricity was spent to get that 2.1 MJ in laser beam? Something tells me that laser with efficiency more than 80% does not exist. Best semiconductor lasers have something near 60% efficiency, and they barely available in amounts enough to build 2.1 MJ assembly. Whatever, even with unreal 60% efficiency they spent 3.5 MJ (1kWh) of electricity to get 2.1 MJ (0.6kWh) of laser light to make 2.5 MJ (0.7kWh) of heat. It is just a very expensive, highly sophisticated and complex, but very unefficient electric heater.

Nearly all possible fusion reactors produce excess heat if they somehow ignite fusion reaction. Even fusor you could build in garage on weekend could do that. But that does not make any breakthrough at all. Seriously, you literally could repeat same "breakthrough" in your garage for something like $100, but with another technology. Just use protection from high-energy neutron radiation that will be a result of fusion reaction to be on safe side.

Tokamaks, now in form of ITER have that "breakthrough" since 60s, when first signs of fusion reaction was received. But it seems that it is much more profitable for fusion crowd to constnatly receive multibillion grants for endless research than to make really working proof-of-concept device.

Moreover, fusion reactor is not "cheap, clean energy" even if it will be finally working. Fusion energy is neraly same as regular fission reactor energy with nearly same problems and drawbacks. The differences only in sources of radioactive waste and dangers of meltdown. Fusion gives a powerful stream of high-energy neutrons, that easily convert materials used in core into radioactive isotopes. So, instead of depleted rods you will get a nuclear waste in form of reactor core case that become radioactive and weared by extreme temperatures. Same with meltdowns - that will not be rods that could melt if something goes wrong, but core that could be burned if fusion plasma become unstable. The main difference is in fuel cost, but it is not as large as many think. Deuterium is not a cheap thing, despite being everywhere. Tritium is even more expensive. Add to this complexity of maintenance and risks of new technology and you will get nearly same cost as for relgular NPP. So, no, fusion reactors will not solve anything really. It is nor clean, nor cheap energy as they told you. And again - that power stations will belong only to big corporations, in no case you will allowed to buy a compact Mr.Fusion for your EV to replace a fucking battery.

They've managed to produce a return.

And as usual it is not how it sounds. For very short time they produce excess heat spending a lot of electricity using a very complex device. This is very far for producing electricity and running device is self-sustainable mode and I'm not shure that for their device they will be able to solve the problem of converting heat they get back into electricity efficiently enough to run the device on its own.

It is even worse than this, really. If journalists did not lie, they get 2.5 MJ of heat from 2.1 MJ of laser beam. How many MJ of electricity was spent to get that 2.1 MJ in laser beam? Something tells me that laser with efficiency more than 80% does not exist. Best semiconductor lasers have something near 60% efficiency, and they barely available in amounts enough to build 2.1 MJ assembly. Whatever, even with unreal 60% efficiency they spent 3.5 MJ of electricity to get 2.1 MJ of laser light to make 2.5 MJ of heat. It is just a very expensive, highly sophisticated and complex, but very unefficient electric heater.

Nearly all possible fusion reactors produce excess heat if they somehow ignite fusion reaction. Even fusor you could build in garage on weekend could do that. But that does not make any breakthrough at all. Seriously, you literally could repeat same "breakthrough" in your garage for something like $100, but with another technology. Just use protection from high-energy neutron radiation that will be a result of fusion reaction to be on safe side.

Tokamaks, now in form of ITER have that "breakthrough" since 60s, when first signs of fusion reaction was received. But it seems that it is much more profitable for fusion crowd to constnatly receive multibillion grants for endless research than to make really working proof-of-concept device.

Moreover, fusion reactor is not "cheap, clean energy" even if it will be finally working. Fusion energy is neraly same as regular fission reactor energy with nearly same problems and drawbacks. The differences only in sources of radioactive waste and dangers of meltdown. Fusion gives a powerful stream of high-energy neutrons, that easily convert materials used in core into radioactive isotopes. So, instead of depleted rods you will get a nuclear waste in form of reactor core case that become radioactive and weared by extreme temperatures. Same with meltdowns - that will not be rods that could melt if something goes wrong, but core that could be burned if fusion plasma become unstable. The main difference is in fuel cost, but it is not as large as many think. Deuterium is not a cheap thing, despite being everywhere. Tritium is even more expensive. Add to this complexity of maintenance and risks of new technology and you will get nearly same cost as for relgular NPP. So, no, fusion reactors will not solve anything really. It is nor clean, nor cheap energy as they told you. And again - that power stations will belong only to big corporations, in no case you will allowed to buy a compact Mr.Fusion for your EV to replace a fucking battery.

They've managed to produce a return.

And as usual it is not how it sounds. For very short time they produce excess heat spending a lot of electricity using a very complex device. This is very far for producing electricity and running device is self-sustainable mode and I'm not shure that for their device they will be able to solve the problem of converting heat they get back into electricity efficiently enough to run the device on its own.

It is even worse than this, really. If journalists did not lie, they get 2.5 MJ of heat from 2.1 MJ of laser beam. How many MJ of electricity was spent to get that 2.1 MJ in laser beam? Something tells me that laser with efficiency more than 80% does not exist. Best semiconductor lasers have something near 60% efficiency, and they barely available in amounts enough to build 2.1 MJ assembly. Whatever, even with unreal 60% efficiency they spent 3.5 MJ of electricity to get 2.1 MJ of laser light to make 2.5 MJ of heat. It is just a very expensive, highly sophisticated and complex, but very unefficient electric heater.

Nearly all possible fusion reactors produce excess heat if they somehow ignite fusion reaction. Even fusor you could build in garage on weekend could do that. But that does not make any breakthrough at all. Seriously, you literally could repeat same "breakthrough" in your garage for something like $100, but with another technology. Just use protection from high-energy neutron radiation that will be a result of fusion reaction to be on safe side.

Tokamaks, now in form of ITER have that "breakthrough" since 60s, when first signs of fusion reaction was received. But it seems that it is much more profitable for fusion crowd to constnatly receive multibillion grants for endless research than to make really working proof-of-concept device.

Moreover, fusion reactor is not "cheap, clean energy" even if it will be finally working. Fusion energy is neraly same as regular fission reactor energy with nearly same problems and drawbacks. The differences only in sources of radioactive waste and dangers of meltdown. Fusion gives a powerful stream of high-energy neutrons, that easily convert materials used in core into radioactive isotopes. So, instead of depleted rods you will get a nuclear waste in form of reactor core case that become radioactive and weared by extreme temperatures. Same with meltdowns - that will not be rods that could melt if something goes wrong, but core that could be burned if fusion plasma become unstable. The main difference is in fuel cost, but it is not as large as many think. Deuterium is not a cheap thing, despite being everywhere. Tritium is even more expensive. Add to this complexity of maintenance and risks of new technology and you will get nearly same cost as for relgular NPP. So, no, fusion reactors will not solve anything really. And again - they will belong only to big corporations, in no case you will allowed to buy a compact Mr.Fusion for your EV to replace a battery.

They've managed to produce a return.

And as usual it is not how it sounds. For very short time they produce excess heat spending a lot of electricity using a very complex device. This is very far for producing electricity and running device is self-sustainable mode and I'm not shure that for their device they will be able to solve the problem of converting heat they get back into electricity efficiently enough to run the device on its own.

It is even worse than this, really. If journalists did not lie, they get 2.5 MJ of heat from 2.1 MJ of laser beam. How many MJ of electricity was spent to get that 2.1 MJ in laser beam? Something tells me that laser with efficiency more than 80% does not exist. Best semiconductor lasers have something near 60% efficiency, and they barely available in amounts enough to build 2.1 MJ assembly. Whatever, even with unreal 60% efficiency they spent 3.5 MJ of electricity to get 2.1 MJ of laser light to make 2.5 MJ of heat. It is just a very expensive, highly sophisticated and complex, but very unefficient electric heater.

Nearly all possible fusion reactors produce excess heat if they somehow ignite fusion reaction. Even fusor you could build in garage on weekend could do that. But that does not make any breakthrough at all.

Tokamaks, now in form of ITER have that "breakthrough" since 60s, when first signs of fusion reaction was received. But it seems that it is much more profitable for fusion crowd to constnatly receive multibillion grants for endless research than to make really working proof-of-concept device.

Moreover, fusion reactor is not "cheap, clean energy" even if it will be finally working. Fusion energy is neraly same as regular fission reactor energy with nearly same problems and drawbacks. The differences only in sources of radioactive waste and dangers of meltdown. Fusion gives a powerful stream of high-energy neutrons, that easily convert materials used in core into radioactive isotopes. So, instead of depleted rods you will get a nuclear waste in form of reactor core case that become radioactive and weared by extreme temperatures. Same with meltdowns - that will not be rods that could melt if something goes wrong, but core that could be burned if fusion plasma become unstable. The main difference is in fuel cost, but it is not as large as many think. Deuterium is not a cheap thing, despite being everywhere. Tritium is even more expensive. Add to this complexity of maintenance and risks of new technology and you will get nearly same cost as for relgular NPP. So, no, fusion reactors will not solve anything really. And again - they will belong only to big corporations, in no case you will allowed to buy a compact Mr.Fusion for your EV to replace a battery.